Poll: Which are you?

Several here say fiscal conservative, or such. It sounds nice but if people speed one needs traffic cops, if people pollute one needs the EPA, if the economy is out of balance it needs government intervention.

Yes to part one.
Very limited to part two.
Worst idea ever to part number three.

Government intervention actually protects capitalism.

But over-regulation; high taxation; trillion dollar bailouts; and general involvement in the free market is a reflection of a government reaching beyond it's Constitutional bounds. Initially, the role of the Federal Government was to be very limited in scope.
 
Several here say fiscal conservative, or such. It sounds nice but if people speed one needs traffic cops, if people pollute one needs the EPA, if the economy is out of balance it needs government intervention.
BAD analogy regarding traffic...and as far as the EPA? Another bureaucracy I'd downsize drastically...for they are in the back pockets of the envirowhackos, and are responsible for massive job losses.:eusa_hand:

Denied RandomFoible, DENIED.
 
According to who??

Are we always going to wait until the bailout?

(No to be rude. I am sure it is just a typo and I am sure one to speak. 'to' is a proposition and who is the object of the preposition that would make it 'whom'.)

You capitalize after periods :rolleyes:

Anyhoo, according to whom?

It is a quote and therefor one must maintain the original form of the instance. (Yes, I just made that shit up. ;))
 
According to who??

Are we always going to wait until the bailout?

(No to be rude. I am sure it is just a typo and I am sure one to speak. 'to' is a proposition and who is the object of the preposition that would make it 'whom'.)

Yes, Slick Willy started the policy of government forcing banks to make sub prime loans, and then government bailed out the banks when they failed in a collapse that started when sub-prime borrowers couldn't pay back their loans, that was government protecting capitalism. LOL. Sure it is.

Banks were begging for the chance to offer sub-prime, Willy made it possible, and the banks ran with it all the way to the edge of the cliff, and over. That is why Presidents should not make such decisions. Blame Willy, not the federal government. Oh, and blaming the banks would probably also be appropriate.
 
And foxes guard hen houses

Competition's ultimate goal is to eliminate the competition.

That's also government's goal

Two companies pay more taxes than one so how do you figure? Big government is only possible with big revenue unless one is suggesting government takeover of industry and it that case that is loonier than I am. Never is no way government can grow if the economy does not grow.
 
Several here say fiscal conservative, or such. It sounds nice but if people speed one needs traffic cops, if people pollute one needs the EPA, if the economy is out of balance it needs government intervention.

According to who??

Are we always going to wait until the bailout?

(No to be rude. I am sure it is just a typo and I am sure one to speak. 'to' is a proposition and who is the object of the preposition that would make it 'whom'.)

Just like some others around here, don't think because you catch something I INTENTIONALLY LEFT there does not make you intelligent, it simply means that you have the same ability as I do to catch grammatical errors ... but was I just baiting??

Usually when they have to resort to being the "grammar nazi" then I know I am money ....

Now bitch tell yourself what ever you need to, to sooth your hurt ego!!
 
Several here say fiscal conservative, or such. It sounds nice but if people speed one needs traffic cops, if people pollute one needs the EPA, if the economy is out of balance it needs government intervention.
BAD analogy regarding traffic...and as far as the EPA? Another bureaucracy I'd downsize drastically...for they are in the back pockets of the envirowhackos, and are responsible for massive job losses.:eusa_hand:

Denied RandomFoible, DENIED.

People in West Virginia are dying because of the jobs they had. They are poor, they have always been poor, and if the government does not step in they will always be poor. If the EPA has been there for them they might still be poor but at least a lot less of them would have cancer. You are demanding the EPA stay out of West Virginia so this can go on for a little longer?
 
Are we always going to wait until the bailout?

(No to be rude. I am sure it is just a typo and I am sure one to speak. 'to' is a proposition and who is the object of the preposition that would make it 'whom'.)

Yes, Slick Willy started the policy of government forcing banks to make sub prime loans, and then government bailed out the banks when they failed in a collapse that started when sub-prime borrowers couldn't pay back their loans, that was government protecting capitalism. LOL. Sure it is.

Banks were begging for the chance to offer sub-prime, Willy made it possible, and the banks ran with it all the way to the edge of the cliff, and over. That is why Presidents should not make such decisions. Blame Willy, not the federal government. Oh, and blaming the banks would probably also be appropriate.

So you think Capitalism is government using force to give companies what they want? LOL, you're not doing any better. You are funnier though.

Actually, capitalism just means economic freedom. Companies, investors, consumers, workers, everyone making their own decisions. Government is the biggest threat to that, because only government can impose it's will with force. You know, like government writing loan regulations to push sub-prime mortgages and then funding it by printing money. There is no "capitalism" in that at all.
 
Last edited:
Competition's ultimate goal is to eliminate the competition.

That's also government's goal

Two companies pay more taxes than one so how do you figure? Big government is only possible with big revenue unless one is suggesting government takeover of industry and it that case that is loonier than I am. Never is no way government can grow if the economy does not grow.

Free markets produce the most tax revenue. The largest booms in Federal receipts in the last century were after JFK and RWR's tax cuts. Politicians are not about having more money, they are about having more control.
 
Yes to part one.
Very limited to part two.
Worst idea ever to part number three.

Government intervention actually protects capitalism.

But over-regulation; high taxation; trillion dollar bailouts; and general involvement in the free market is a reflection of a government reaching beyond it's Constitutional bounds. Initially, the role of the Federal Government was to be very limited in scope.

If one want to look at who America was envisioned to be look to the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. Even then one is comparing apples and oranges. I think the Founding Fathers would assume we would be able to think for ourselves or they would have not created a democracy in the first place.
 
Why do you need labels??
What is wrong with reality and what if you feel those types of labels you are wanting to put on people are stereotypical and ignorant??

Why does everything have to fit in a nice neat little hole for you??

So you know that you are going to "anger" people by asking this but yes you insist, what does that say about the type of pompous ass you are??

Would you like me to go on?? Get a freaking clue in life, most people don't like being grouped into stereotypical images ....

I'm not looking for labels as much as the general "lean" of this site. It's certainly not a scientific poll. It's just informational and conversational.


Look if you can not read what I post and figure it out, then why would you believe anything I say??

I am a registered Democrat!!

Is the above a true or false statement??
I would recommend coming back when you can comprehend what he is asking.
 
Yes, Slick Willy started the policy of government forcing banks to make sub prime loans, and then government bailed out the banks when they failed in a collapse that started when sub-prime borrowers couldn't pay back their loans, that was government protecting capitalism. LOL. Sure it is.

Banks were begging for the chance to offer sub-prime, Willy made it possible, and the banks ran with it all the way to the edge of the cliff, and over. That is why Presidents should not make such decisions. Blame Willy, not the federal government. Oh, and blaming the banks would probably also be appropriate.

So you think Capitalism is government using force to give companies what they want? LOL, you're not doing any better. You are funnier though.

Actually, capitalism just means economic freedom. Companies, investors, consumers, workers, everyone making their own decisions. Government is the biggest threat to that, because only government can impose it's will with force. You know, like government writing loan regulations to push sub-prime mortgages and then funding it by printing money. There is no "capitalism" in that at all.

I might agree with some of that except that first sentence is not exactly correct. Capitalism does not just mean economic freedom. Capitalism is a theory which has been researched quite a lot whereas 'economic freedom' is a sound bite.
 
That's also government's goal

Two companies pay more taxes than one so how do you figure? Big government is only possible with big revenue unless one is suggesting government takeover of industry and it that case that is loonier than I am. Never is no way government can grow if the economy does not grow.

Free markets produce the most tax revenue. The largest booms in Federal receipts in the last century were after JFK and RWR's tax cuts. Politicians are not about having more money, they are about having more control.

Put your swimmies back on and move to the shallow end of the pool.
 
Banks were begging for the chance to offer sub-prime, Willy made it possible, and the banks ran with it all the way to the edge of the cliff, and over. That is why Presidents should not make such decisions. Blame Willy, not the federal government. Oh, and blaming the banks would probably also be appropriate.

So you think Capitalism is government using force to give companies what they want? LOL, you're not doing any better. You are funnier though.

Actually, capitalism just means economic freedom. Companies, investors, consumers, workers, everyone making their own decisions. Government is the biggest threat to that, because only government can impose it's will with force. You know, like government writing loan regulations to push sub-prime mortgages and then funding it by printing money. There is no "capitalism" in that at all.

I might agree with some of that except that first sentence is not exactly correct. Capitalism does not just mean economic freedom. Capitalism is a theory which has been researched quite a lot whereas 'economic freedom' is a sound bite.

Which is why I went on to describe it...
 
Registered independent. Moderate liberal - pro-science, pro-equal marriage. I'm strongly against teaching creationism (in any form) in schools. Anti-Voter ID laws, pro-cutting tax breaks for corporations and loopholes for the wealthy but against extending UE benefits. Strongly for raising the minimum wage.
 
Two companies pay more taxes than one so how do you figure? Big government is only possible with big revenue unless one is suggesting government takeover of industry and it that case that is loonier than I am. Never is no way government can grow if the economy does not grow.

Free markets produce the most tax revenue. The largest booms in Federal receipts in the last century were after JFK and RWR's tax cuts. Politicians are not about having more money, they are about having more control.

Put your swimmies back on and move to the shallow end of the pool.

Sure, you have liberal lawyers telling you one thing, and I have the field of economics telling me another. Obviously I'm just naive...

LOL, you're a hoot.
 
I'm a Laissez Faire Capitalist and extremely liberal. I support Republicanism as defined by Locke and see government as legitimate only to secure the rights of life, liberty, and property.
 
Registered independent. Moderate liberal - pro-science, pro-equal marriage. I'm strongly against teaching creationism (in any form) in schools. Anti-Voter ID laws, pro-cutting tax breaks for corporations and loopholes for the wealthy but against extending UE benefits. Strongly for raising the minimum wage.

So you're a "moderate liberal" who agrees with the hard left on everything except "extending UE benefits?" Doesn't take much for a liberal to be a "moderate" does it?
 

Forum List

Back
Top